President Bush revives proposal to sell
desert and forest land

Thousands of acres of
public land may soon be up for grabs if two proposals in President
Bush’s 2007 budget make it through Congress. Released Feb. 6,
the budget directs the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management to generate more than $1 billion by selling off parcels
of land.

Under the proposals, the Forest Service would
put as many as 300,000 acres in 32 states on the block, a
significant shift in policy for an agency that currently has
limited authority to peddle its land. The BLM, which already has
broad land-sale authority, could see its annual sales increase
sevenfold by 2011.

The proposals come little more than
two months after a high-profile move by Rep. Richard Pombo,
R-Calif., and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., to sell off millions of
acres of public land under the 1872 Mining Act. That effort was
beaten back by bipartisan opposition from lawmakers and
conservation and outdoor groups (HCN, 12/26/05: Bipartisan uprising
sinks public-lands selloff).

Of the two proposals, the
Forest Service’s has drawn the most attention. It would
generate $800 million to fund the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which over the past five
years has paid out about $2 billion for schools and other services
in counties strapped by the decline in federal timber sales. The
act expires this September; both Republicans and Democrats say its
funding needs to be extended.

However, Democrats have
blasted the Forest Service proposal, and increasingly, Republicans
are voicing opposition. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., recently called
the plan "dead in the water," a comment echoed by Sen. Conrad
Burns, R-Mont., chair of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee,
which may kill the proposal.

Yet even as lawmakers from
both parties sponsor legislation to fund the schools act through a
different source, environmental groups remain concerned. They say
the administration’s proposal backs lawmakers and the public
into a corner.

"They’re forcing people into this
untenable situation, where in order to protect public lands, they
have to say ‘no’ to schoolchildren," says Janine
Blaeloch, executive director of the nonprofit Western Lands
Project. "It diverts attention from their real agenda, which is
privatizing public land."

Prime parcels on the
block

Forest Service officials say the parcels in
question are expensive to manage, lack essential habitat, cultural
resources or recreational benefits, and are separated from the main
forest lands. The BLM has yet to release specific acreages to be
sold.

Opponents say many acres on the Forest
Service’s list shouldn’t be there. One example, in
Montana’s Bitterroot Valley, is the Willoughby 40, where a
popular nature trail winds through ponderosa pines at the foot of
the Sapphire Mountains. Local schools use the property — with
its picnic area, parking and restroom — for field trips. Yet
it lies outside the main national forest boundary, so it’s
been tagged for sale. Also on the list, environmental groups say,
are remote river canyons, roadless areas, hunting and fishing
lands, and prime wildlife habitat.

Agriculture
Undersecretary Mark Rey says such parcels could ultimately be
removed from consideration following the 30 day-public comment
period: "I want everyone to be comfortable with every half-acre
that stays on the list." Rey says he expects only up to 200,000
acres will need to be sold to meet the funding goal.

But
there is no way to field-check the proposed 300,000 acres in 30
days, environmental groups say. The public comment deadline in late
March will be long past when the snow has melted and people can
reach many higher elevation parcels, says Stephanie Tidwell of the
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center.

Sold once,
gone forever

Opponents concede that some of these Forest
Service lands are a hassle to manage, but argue that if the agency
is getting rid of them, it should at least get some lands in
return. The lands for sale are some of the agency’s best
"trade bait," they say, and auctioning them off could undermine the
Forest Service’s ability to swap for lands that would be more
valuable in the long term.

As for the BLM proposal, the
problem is not only the sale, but also where the money will go.
Seventy percent of the BLM’s general land-sale proceeds would
be funneled away from land acquisition, where they're currently
used, and into the general treasury. "It’s public-land
liquidation for deficit reduction," says David Alberswerth, senior
policy advisor for The Wilderness Society.

The BLM
proposal does not target money raised by land sales around Las
Vegas. Since 1998, those sales have raised $2.75 billion for land
acquisition and park and trail construction in southern Nevada. The
Bush administration tried, unsuccessfully, to grab 70 percent of
that money for the treasury in last year’s budget proposal
(HCN, 3/21/05: Nevada desert to be sold for debt relief).

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer thinks that both of this year’s
proposals — the Forest Service’s and the BLM’s
— are headed for the political graveyard. "If we sold off a
piece of land every time we needed to raise money, we
wouldn’t have any public land left," he says. "Maybe just the
parking lot in front of the Capitol building."

The author is an HCN
intern.

For More
Information

www.fs.fed.us has more information.
The public comment deadline is March 30.

More from Wildlife

Wyoming has a sole U.S. Representative; Barbara Cubin.
Whenever a publiic land grab comes up, she is around. When it blows
up in her face she spins some weak denials and excuses. Somehow she
has pulled the wool over the Wyoming voter's eyes for 13 yrs. I
would sure like to see the Bush acolytes like Cubin and Pombo
booted out in the coming election. And it might make my public
lands a little safer.

paolob

Mar 09, 2006 11:54 AM

The following came in via our editorial
email box. Paolo Bacigalupi, Online Editor

Public
Acres for Sale I am always disappointed when your
reporters fail to reflect balance and refuse to allow readers to
draw their own conclusions. Your recent story on President
Bush¹s 2007 budget proposal to sell surplus parcels of
federal land fails to consider the positive impacts of selling
surplus federal land such as that occurring under the Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) of 1998 and the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) of 2000.

For instance, you mention BLM has raised $2.75
billion for park and trail construction in southern
Nevada. However, you fail to mention proceeds have also
been used to acquire thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive land throughout Nevada, something
considered impossible prior to passage of the
respective acts. There are many other direct and
indirect impacts that have been derived from public land sale proceeds including development and implementation of
habitat management plans, funding for major
conservation initiatives and additional protection for
Lake Tahoe.

Regardless of where sale
proceeds are directed Congress has consistently
required agencies to establish a land sale program based upon approved federal land use plans that undergo extensive
public involvement and development of an Environmental
Impact Statement and Record of Decision supporting
recommendations to dispose of land. Specific criteria,
such as a determination that land is difficult and uneconomic to manage, not suitable for management by another
federal agency, or critical to meet other important
public objectives such as expansion of communities and
economic development is used to identify disposal
parcels. Land containing significant resource values, or environmentally sensitive land, is identified for retention
and management by the appropriate agency.

Critics such as Janine Blaeloch have consistently
condemned agencies for federal land exchanges (also
authorized by law) while others suggest auctioning land
off could undermine the ability of the Forest Service
and other agencies to swap for lands that would be more valuable in the long term. Under the SNPLMA and FLTFA agencies
are able to sell surplus federal parcels, identified in
approved land use plans, using proceeds to acquire
environmentally sensitive land without controversial
land exchanges. We have done this successfully in Nevada for many years with broad public support including support in
rural Nevada where the thought of adding additional
federal land was once considered unthinkable.

Finally, conserving and protecting land across the
country while protecting wildlife habitat, working
landscapes, recreation areas, open spaces, and historic
sites will only occur when private parties and public
agencies work together using a dual purpose mission of promoting
economic development and environmental protection. A
federal land sale program based upon all the above can
achieve those goals.